I absolutely think this one of, if not the best, era in human history to exist in. We dont die of the bubonic plauge, we get anesthesia for surgery, and most importantly, we have waffle house.

But if this is the best time and we still have so much war, so much poverty, so much bigotry, and the lucky ones of us are wage slaves, it still aint worth it to me.

Its less bad now, but that doesnt mean a kid would thrive in this world. It just means they would be worse off before. That just makes me think "its also bad that people brought kids into the world before".

There have always been people who genuinely wanted to be parents, but there was also lack of sex ed/contraceptives, societal pressures, the need for field workers, need to continue a lineage, a lotta rape that couldnt be aborted, ect. Now, people generally have kids out of just wanting them rather than because they need a worker that is small enough to clean out the chimney. People didnt just pop them out because of the indominable human spirit.

Things dont not suck just because they used to suck more. Even if I wasnt antinatalist, i still think its just not a good argument. Even before I was antinatalist, i thought it was a bad argument.

This particular argument gets on my nerves a lot bcs it feels less like you being depressed and someone says that there are children starving in africa. That doesnt make the situation better.

It seems that more and more you hear billionaires and right wingers, and even left wingers talk about how the declining birth rates are a bad thing. I understand that billionaires need labour and a bigger poverty pool, and the right is concerned about the white birth rate. But why is this such a big issue? The economy shrinks and old people outnumber young people? The way I see it a smaller amount of people means a better quality of life for a smaller group, we can use AI to look after the elderly and use AI to do the billionaires dirty work. Housing shortages could be fixed, pollution would decrease? Seems like the benefits outweigh the negatives even from a pro Natalist pov

So, there was an article yesterday on CNN's website that addresses the variety of recent theme park disasters. Namely, there have been a various malfunctions whereby people have died or been seriously injured.

And the online article says: "Roller coasters are designed to deliver thrills through sudden drops, sharp turns and rapid changes in speed, but what kinds of injuries can these forces cause? How common are these injuries. Are some people more vulnerable than others? And is the thrill worth the risk?"

And it's that last sentence about thrill being worth the risk that suddenly made me think about anti-natalism.

I think a lot of people would look at roller coasters and say "Umm... no... it is not worth the risk."

And I would remark here that many people would have the exact same take on the notion of being alive. Except, compared to going on a roller coaster where you have a 0.0001% chance of becoming injured, being alive means that you will have a 100% chance of suffering one day.

In "The Things They Carried" by Tim O' Brien, an American author who fought in the Vietnam War, he expressed his frustration about how society usually puts a moral, uplifting message/story behind the unjust and cruel reality of war.

This makes me think about how most people often romanticize many aspects of life, creating a toxic positivity culture. Almost every downside of life is considered necessary or something to be overcome. This also extends to childbirth, especially in my country, where it is viewed as a painful but "noble" process.

Hi everyone,

I got banned from the Reddit Fencesitter group for a post about antinatalism. I think being aware of the antinatalist viewpoint is a valid factor in deciding whether to have kids. Why do they hate me?

Here is the text of my post in the Fencesitter group:

Antinatalism

What do you feel about the following thesis of antinatalism: it is not fair to your child to bring them into this world without their consent (which they obviously cannot give before they are born) because the world is full of suffering? I am interested in this because I often feel that it would have been better for everyone, especially for me, if I had not been born (even though my parents were good and my family was good and I have a good life in terms of normal standards).

Im curious about your antinatalism journey. From a young age I felt annoyed and confused about existing. Whenever anyone mentioned having kids to me in the future I would say 'Why have more kids when there are kids without homes?' I repeatedly said I wanted to adopt whenever anyone asked. Of course I didn't understand the complexity of adoption but as a kid bringing humans into this world made no sense to me. I didn't know about antinatalism then and I felt like I was different from everyone else. My parents had three more kids when I was in my late teens and forced me to care for them. They would say I was a bad or unhelpful daughter if I didn't take care of them since it was my family duty. I kept repeating that it hadn't been my choice to have kids so why did I have to take care of them? I think this has been a big question in my life. People constantly act as if their children are a burden yet they chose to have them. Have you always been antinatalist? How did you discover it?

Since majority of natalist are religious anyways: why do you consider yourself an antinatalist. What is the main reason why you are an anti-natalist?

Learning more about economics and how governments operate with private interests in mind really made me really realize how human life is actually measured in terms of value. Import people, make more people and fix more people in order to accomplish more work output per capita.

Most of all. It's al exploitative. The poor ,the middle, the rich.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have my own kids. Just not in this world. You can have kids if you want them to be at risk of being exploited too. But not me though. My kids don't deserve to live in such an exploitative and unequal world.

Im very new to the concept of anti natalism. I have 2 major questions, but it has mini sub questionsin them too..eould be great if i can get answers to this all:

1. How does anti natalism & anti natals in general view adoption? Like if someone wants to be a parent but not have their own biological children, and rather adopt..how do you guys view it? Is anti natalism against this too?

2. Does anti natalism go hand in hand with nihilism? Like according to it, whats the purpose of life, does it also say life is meaningless? and does it say anything about how should we live life..like if should we strive to be better, the happiest version of ourselves & make most of life?

I am not much aware of anti natalism & just trying to understand the concept so some clarification on these things would be great in terms of understanding. Thanks.

I'm in an outpatient mental health program for depression and the topic of kids was brought up by the therapist leading the group session.

I said that for me, having kids would be an unethical decision, personally. The therapist was so so intrigued by my statement that he abandoned the group material and asked me to clarify. I explained, of course, suffering, and how we force suffering on human beings who can't consent when we have children.

While this therapist starts to agree with me, an ecologist who is also a patient (recently discharged from a psych hospital) says she still plans to have children and that "it's not a big deal because it's just nature. Every species does it."

I said I understand that we have the biological drive to reproduce, but unlike other species, we have a complex, advanced pre-frontal cortex that can help us make more ethical and educated decisions.

She yelled at the therapist for going off topic and promptly left the group session.

No hate to the LGBTQ community. But I see some same sex couples have kids with sperm donors and egg donors. So if the kid is not even biologically related to one of the parents, shouldn’t it mean that its not a big deal if the kid is not biologically related to them at all?
whats the point of creating a whole new human being instead of adopting???

Like honestly, most of my philosophical know-how is just parroting reddit comments and Wikipedia pages, and I feel like a dunce for it.

But I'm also not a professional, educated philosopher with a PhD or anything remotely close.

So where do I start getting into the real nitty-gritty? I once read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti, but while I got the overall gist of the book, it was clearly written by someone who's a horror author first and philosopher second. I'd prefer more clear language, focus on logical arguments and less... doom for the sake of doom.

If you don't agree with my views, please just scroll from this post. If you think that I will be lonely or that I'm cold, cruel, too harsh, that's completely fine, entitled to your opinion, but scroll. You're not my target audience.

Anyway, to the people out there that are determined to not be friends with people that choose to have children, how do you go about finding people like you? I'm 20 and black, to make it worse, because most people in my demographic are raging Christians who believe it's God's will for them to create a family, settle down with a husband, and have the regular suburban 9-5 life.

Nothing wrong with that if they want to do what they want to do, but my views and opinions are very strong. I want people who are selfless enough around me that even if they do want to have children, they don't allow their selfish needs to override that moral choice. I don't know if I'd mind being friends in the future when I'm 35 plus, surely not before then, being friends with people who have adopted children, although it wouldn't be my preference. But I really strictly only want to be friends with people that don't ever want to have kids.

But I feel like it's kind of hard to find people like this. I see them all over social media, but actually finding someone that knows they 100% don't want children in the future ever in their lifetime is very difficult. I have a very certain picture of my life in the future. When I'm 40, I want to have a friend group of women around me who are independent, who live spontaneous lives, where they're not busy catering to a husband and kids that they can barely hang out with me, that we can barely spend time with each other, go out on holidays. I want to live a carefree life forever. I feel like in this society people expect you to become boring, lifeless, and acquiesce to societal norms like settling down when you're approaching your 30s. I don't see the point of life if I'm not living it the way that I want. So I just want to make sure that my friend group is just people like me. But I have no idea where to find these people in real life. So how do you guys do this?

Just saw A Quiet Place (2018) for the first time. This is my full review of the film, which is a very Pro Natalist Film.

Review: What a horrible, horrendous movie.

This movie has only one message it wants to get across: pro-natalism. There is nothing else to this movie beyond that message. This isn't a movie about people trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world where aliens have taken over. It's a movie about pro-natalism: even if you lose a child to a bloodthirsty alien, just have another one.

The movie never addresses how many people are left in the world or what the couple imagines the future will look like for themselves and their children. There is no conversation about any of this. It's all about one thing: reproduce, no matter what.

Not once do we hear either parent question whether they should even be having another child under these circumstances. Just look at the lives of their existing children. One gets eaten alive by an alien, while the other two are condemned to spend their lives trying not to make a sound so they don't get eaten themselves.

I mean, this movie literally justifies bringing children into a world like that. It promotes the idea of sacrificing yourself to protect your children, which, in isolation, isn't a bad message at all. However, when you actually consider the situation, what exactly are you accomplishing by sacrificing yourself? Your children aren't necessarily going to be any safer or happier after you're gone. They're living in a post-apocalyptic world where there seems to be no connection to other survivors, assuming there are even any left.

And what kind of life are these children supposed to have in the first place? They can be killed for making an accidental noise. They have almost no freedom to interact normally with their environment, and their parents cannot guarantee their safety. Their long-term prospects are deeply uncertain, and they may have to spend their entire lives in survival mode.

Even if these children survive into adulthood, what then? Can they form relationships? Build communities? Have fulfilling lives? Will they have access to medical care, education, or any semblance of normal human existence? The film's premise makes these questions particularly relevant because the danger isn't some abstract possibility; it's a constant feature of their everyday lives.

Did the parents not stop to think, even for a moment, about what their children's lives would actually look like before bringing another child into this world? What are these children living for? Why are their parents continuing to bring children into a situation like this? How are children who spend nearly all their time confined to their homes with their parents and siblings supposed to navigate their teenage years, puberty, and adulthood, assuming they even live long enough to experience them?

The entire movie feels more like a vehicle for a pro-natalist agenda than a genuinely thoughtful, meaningful film. The baby only cries when its convenient for the scene. Of course, most viewers will probably be easily swayed by its emotional moments, such as the father sacrificing himself for his children, without ever stopping to question the film's broader message.

Overall, I genuinely can't rate this film low enough. And even setting aside the philosophical and practical criticisms of its underlying message, the movie has very little else going for it. The cinematography and direction are nothing special either. Everything feels incredibly basic, to the point where I genuinely think a film student could do a better job.

I’m an ex-Christian from Syria and became anti-Natalist simultaneously.

I find that the Abrahamic religions impose such importance on breeding, mainly in Islam where polygamy is everywhere.

Just seeing how many kids some people have in the Middle East shocks me. I’m glad to be living in the west away from the terrible conditions I endured.

Context: the video is almost a decade old and interviews 2 child predators regarding how they pick their targets. The predators in the video explained that they gain trust with the children and typically have some type of familial relationship with them.

I know the video is pretty old, but when I saw these comments, I really wanted to come on here to discuss the type of thinking that occurs within these people (particularly the parents). I don’t understand how someone can go through something as traumatic as S.A, recognize and acknowledge that the people around them (including close relatives) are untrustworthy, and still decide to bring more children into the world. The replies congratulated these people and called them brave. I am at a loss of words.

But why?

Are any of you friends or willing to be close friends or best friends with people who have kids?
Or do you prefer to maintain a circle of people similar to you with no kids and with the shared perception that it is selfish, unkind, unnecessary and immoral to procreate? For me personally, I lean towards that. I was speaking about it on the child-free sub and got completely cooked on there. What are you guys' opinions?

Helllllo

As the title suggests, I be testing the waters with the potential future prospects and the answers are always ‘oh sure’ (with expectations of changing my mind) or sometimes oh sure but what if, baby what you mean what if? We are ACTIVELY gonna avoid that nu uh. And it has always been a failed convo discussing that with any of my relatively progressive inner circle, ‘oh you’ll change your mind’, ‘not even ONE!’, craziest I’ve heard is ‘but the man is gonna leave’… let him then😭😭
I’m a North African woman in my early 20s, I’m currently in my ‘protecting my peace’ and healing phase but I inevitably have the recurring thought process of what I’d do when the time comes.

I’d appreciate hearing from y’all’s experiences :D!!

I don't think any at this point. What is something relatively decent you have heard?

I've noticed that content supporting leftist views, anarchism, and similar political groups is quite common on Instagram Reels, with a solid community supporting them. However, I rarely, if ever, see anything related to antinatalism or similar philosophies.

​Why do you think antinatalist content doesnt get the same level of reach, engagement, or community presence on Instagram? Is it mainly due to algorithmic suppression (shadowbanning), the niche nature of the philosophy, or the taboos surrounding the topic?

​I'd love to hear your thoughts

From the moment a human being is born, they enter a framework defined by the standards of others. Parents bestow a name upon a child, and society assigns meaning to that name. From that point on, a person begins to live not as themselves, but as the person others expect them to be—becoming someone who appears "decent" in the eyes of others, fulfilling roles that others desire, and existing in a way that doesn't cause discomfort to those around them. In this process, they gradually lose their original, authentic self. —From the book *Nietzsche’s Transcendent Being* In a way, one might even call this a set of "slave chains." By assigning names to people, it seems to facilitate their subjugation and reproduction—ensuring they remain within a system where they provide labor and wealth to those in positions of power. After all, you don’t see millions of ants or a herd of zebras giving each other names, do you? And even if you want to change your name, why must you go through a formal legal process in court—all because of a name your parents chose for you without your consent? If zebras were to name one another, it would likely reveal information to predators, posing a direct threat to their survival. Honestly, it feels a bit like a name is... a sort of "verbal electronic ankle monitor," doesn't it?

I ain't producing any kid to suffer. How to find a girl with similar views?